Key Points
Question
What incident and youth characteristics are associated with responses to coercive requests for images?
Findings
In this survey study of 6204 young adults, the risk of sharing sexual images before the age of 18 years in response to coercive requests was significantly higher when requests were made by dating partners. Sharing an image in response to coercion was associated with reduced disclosure rates despite significantly greater negative outcomes for adolescents.
Meaning
Prevention messages for adolescents should highlight the harm caused by coercive requests for sexual images and increase help-seeking options.
This survey study evaluates what incident and youth factors are associated with an adolescent's decision to share sexual images after coercive requests.
Abstract
Importance
Requests for sexual images are a common but understudied component of adolescent digital interactions. Although image sharing or sexting can be a consensual behavior between peers, when requests for sexual images are coercive it is a form of sexual harassment.
Objective
To examine experiences with coercive requests for sexual images received before the age of 18 years and the incident and respondent characteristics associated with sharing an image in response to coercion.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This survey study was conducted in the US between June 28, 2023, and April 1, 2024. Survey participants were a sample of 6204 young adults (aged 18-28 years). Screening procedures were designed to oversample individuals with histories of image-based sexual abuse to examine questions related to incident dynamics. Analyses used statistical weighting to improve generalizability to the US population.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression modeling examined whether demographic and incident-level factors were associated with a decision by respondents to share a sexual image in response to coercion, defined as threats or strong pressure, and the impact of sharing on disclosure and mental health outcomes.
Results
A total of 2853 respondents reported 4205 incidents of image-based sexual abuse, including 2003 coercive requests for sexual images that occurred before they were 18 years of age; in 1886 (mean respondent age, 22.8 [95% CI, 22.6-23.1] years; 91.0% female [95% CI, 89.4-92.4]) of these incidents, respondents provided information on whether they did or did not share an image in response, making up the analytic sample for the study. In 1067 coercive request incidents (55.6%; 95% CI, 51.5%-59.6%), adolescents shared an image in response. Sharing was significantly less likely when the perpetrator was someone the adolescent met online vs a dating partner (odds ratio [OR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.54; P < .001) and was more likely for incidents lasting longer than month (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 2.44-5.16; P < .001). Respondents who shared images reported significantly worse mental health outcomes than those who did not (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04 -1.17; P = .001) and were less likely to disclose the incident (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P = .04).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this survey study of young adults in the US, findings identified significant harms associated with providing sexual images in response to coercive requests during adolescence. Results highlight the importance of providing adolescents with skills to respond to image requests and information about the harmful outcomes of coercive sexual image requests.
Introduction
Sexual image sharing has become increasingly prevalent in youth digital culture.1 One meta-analysis found adolescent prevalence rates of 19.3% for sending sexual photos and 34.8% for receiving, with females more frequently receiving requests and older adolescents more likely to engage in sending behaviors. Many respondents perceive sexual image sharing as a normal part of dating2,3 and see sexting as normative among their peers.4,5 Although requesting and sharing sexual images can be consensual in the context of romantic relationships, there are risks for adolescents. Sexual images may be shared without consent and threats to share the images may be used coercively after a relationship ends.6,7 Such cases are increasingly recognized as forms of image-based sexual abuse (IBSA).8,9 One study10 found that more than one-third of adolescents who shared sexual images reported adverse outcomes. Coercive requests for images can also be distressing experiences for adolescents and increase the chance that the exchange may not be fully consensual.11 Even in the absence of overt threats, many adolescents experience strong pressure to send intimate images, pressure that can be emotional, manipulative, or persistent in nature.12,13,14 Coercive requests for sexual images can be considered an online form of sexual harassment, which research has linked to adverse outcomes, such as sleep problems, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and substance use for adolescents.15
It is important to understand the circumstances under which adolescents feel compelled to share a sexual image in response to coercive requests to effectively target prevention and intervention programs. Prior research has found that when asked to send a sexual image by a current boyfriend or girlfriend, 70% of adolescents comply,2 but it is not clear how they respond when a request is coercive. Although some may refuse to share images, others may comply due to feeling scared, ashamed, or concerned about the relational consequence of refusing.12,16 The current study examines experiences with coercive requests for sexual images received before the age of 18 years reported by a large sample of young adult survey respondents and the incident and respondent characteristics associated with sharing an image in response to coercion. The study also assesses the differential association of sharing vs not sharing with disclosure behavior and outcome of the incident for adolescents.
Methods
Study Design
The survey study was conducted between June 28, 2023, and April 1, 2024, in the US. A sample of 6204 young adults (aged 18-28 years) was recruited through Facebook and Instagram advertisements promoting an opportunity to share the experiences of young people in survey research. Three screening questions (measured on a 5-point Likert scale) were administered before survey administration, asking whether the respondent had ever sent a sexual image or video, been asked for a sexual image or video, or talked with friends about the risks of sending sexual images or videos. The purpose of the screening questions was to ensure an oversample of individuals with IBSA experiences. Study involvement of human participants and informed consent procedures were approved by the University of New Hampshire Institutional Review Board. All participants provided written consent to participate. The study followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reporting guidelines.
Eligible respondents were routed to an online survey and those who completed the survey and provided a valid US non–PO box mailing address were sent a $15 Amazon gift card. Requiring a physical US mailing address for the gift card successfully deterred fraudulent entries from outside the US, a common challenge with online recruitment strategies that offer an email incentive.17 Additional steps were taken to deter and detect any fraudulent entries, including sending one incentive per address, using Qualtrics settings to limit multiple responses and detect duplicate and fraudulent entries (eg, RECAPTCHA Score, RelevantID Duplicate Score, and RelevantID Fraud Score), attention-check items in the survey, and reviewing responses for completion time, conflicting response patterns, and straight-lining.
Measures
Survey items were adapted from a prior study9 on technology-facilitated abuse. Outcome measures were demographic and incident-level factors associated with a decision by respondents to share a sexual image in response to coercion, defined as threats or strong pressure, and the outcome of sharing for disclosure and mental health.
Respondent Characteristics
Survey respondents reported on their age at the time of the incident (≤12, 13-15, or 16-17 years), age at the time of the survey (continuous); gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, and whether they had received a high school diploma. Self-report data on race and ethnicity were collected to characterize the sample and to evaluate whether outcome variables varied across groups, recognizing that structural inequities may shape adolescents’ vulnerability to online sexual harm and access to protective resources. Additionally, respondents were asked about 11 types of adversity (eg, living on the street or in a shelter, being sent or taken away from your family, or knew someone who overdosed on prescription medication pills or other drugs) and 8 types of abuse or maltreatment (eg, an adult hitting them) that they may have experienced before 18 years of age. Counts of all adversities and types of abuse or maltreatment were included in analyses.
Incident Characteristics
Respondents were asked how long the incident lasted (≥1 vs <1 month), how many times requests for images were made (≤3 vs ≥4), and the number of perpetrators (1 vs ≥2). Information about the perpetrator was coded as adult (vs minor or unknown) and relationship between the respondent and perpetrator (dating partner, friend or acquaintance, or stranger or person known only online). Respondents were also asked whether a threat was involved in the request for images (yes or no).
Incident Outcomes and Impact
Respondents were asked whether they had told anyone about the incident before they were 18 years of age (yes or no) and about the degree the event impacted them (dichotomized as impacting them little or somewhat vs significantly). Respondents were also asked their perspectives on whether the event negatively affected them in 16 different ways (eg, getting worse grades, trouble concentrating, or thinking about hurting themselves). Items were analyzed individually (yes or no), and a composite variable was created as a sum of the different ways the event impacted them (scale of 0-16, with 0 indicating negative outcomes and 16 indicating positive outcomes). Lastly, depressive symptoms in the past 30 days were measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10).18 Response options ranged from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). Items were combined for a total scale score with higher values indicating more symptoms. The reliability of the scale in the current study was good (α = .82). For analyses, high depression was coded as scores greater than 1 SD.
Statistical Analysis
Data were weighted to general population targets using statistics from the Current Population Survey19 for individuals aged 18 to 28 years on age, gender, educational level, race and Hispanic ethnicity, and gender identity and sexual identity (from Pew Research).20,21 Unweighted sample sizes are reported; weighted percentages and 95% CIs are provided. Missing data were less than 5% for all variables. For categorical variables, missing and prefer not to answer responses are provided in tables. For dummy-coded variables, missing data were coded as not present. For continuous variables mean replacement was used for missing data.
Analyses were conducted using Stata SE, version 19 (StataCorp).22 Unadjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine bivariate differences between respondents who did and did not share sexual images in response to coercive requests across respondent characteristics, incident characteristics, and incident outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression models included all variables with bivariate associations statistically significant at a 2-sided P < .10 and estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for respondent and incident characteristics on decision to share image in response to coercion. Two-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Of 6204 respondents completing the survey, 2853 respondents reported on a total of 4205 incidents of image-based sexual abuse, including 2003 coercive requests for sexual images (involving threats, force, or strong pressure) that occurred before they were 18 years of age. In 1886 of these incidents (mean respondent age, 22.8 [95% CI, 22.6-23.1] years; 91.0% female [95% CI, 89.4%-92.4%]; 13.6% Black [95% CI, 10.5%-17.3%], 64.1% White [95% CI, 60.0%-68.0%], 4.7% multiple [95% CI, 3.8%-5.9%], and 12.0% other [95% CI, 9.6%-15.0%], including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and other), respondents provided information on whether they did or did not share an image in response, making up the analytic sample for the study. In 1067 coercive request incidents (55.6%; 95% CI, 51.5%-59.6%), respondents shared an image in response. Sexual orientation before 18 years of age was reported as heterosexual by 68.6% of the sample (95% CI, 65.3%-71.8%). Most respondents reported receiving a high school diploma at the time of the survey (78.5%; 95% CI, 74.7%-81.9%), and 43.2% (95% CI, 33.5%-41.3%) reported having a family with a lower-than-average household income. Table 1 provides weighted demographic distributions for the full sample.
Table 1. Bivariate Associations Between Respondent Characteristics and Image Sharing in Response to Coercion.
| Respondent characteristic | Incidents, weighted % (95% CI)a | OR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All incidents (N = 1886) | Did not share image (n = 819) | Shared image (n = 1067) | |||
| Age at incident, y | |||||
| ≤12 | 11.7 (9.5-14.3) | 13.6 (9.99-18.1) | 10.2 (7.6-13.5) | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| 13-15 | 48.5 (44.4-52.6) | 46.4 (40.4-52.5) | 50.2 (44.7-55.6) | 1.44 (0.88-2.34) | .15 |
| 16-17 | 38.8 (33.5-44.3) | 38.9 (32.9-45.2) | 38.8 (33.5-44.3) | 1.32 (0.79-2.22) | .29 |
| Missing or PNA | 1.0 (0.5-1.8) | 1.2 (0.4-3.1) | 0.8 (0.4-1.7) | 0.95 (0.26-3.48) | .93 |
| Gender (aged <18 y) | |||||
| Female | 91.0 (89.4-92.4) | 91.0 (88.4-93.1) | 91.0 (88.9-92.7) | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Male | 1.0 (0.6-1.4) | 0.6 (0.3-1.0) | 1.2 (0.7-2.1) | 2.11 (0.97-4.62) | .06 |
| Otherb | 7.3 (6.0-8.8) | 7.5 (5.6-10.1) | 7.1 (5.5-9.0) | 0.94 (0.62-1.42) | .78 |
| Missing or PNA | 0.8 (0.6-1.1) | 0.9 (0.5-1.4) | 0.7 (0.5-1.1) | 0.84 (0.43-1.63) | .44 |
| Sexual orientation (aged <18 y) | |||||
| Heterosexual | 68.6 (65.3-71.8) | 73.3 (68.7-77.4) | 64.9 (60.1-69.5) | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Bisexual | 19.9 (17.3-22.8) | 13.7 (11.0-17.0) | 24.8 (20.8-29.3) | 2.04 (1.43-2.92) | <.001 |
| Otherc | 9.3 (8.0-10.84) | 9.8 (7.8-12.2) | 9.0 (7.3-11.0) | 1.03 (0.72-1.47) | .86 |
| Missing or PNA | 2.1 (1.3-3.5) | 3.2 (1.6-6.1) | 1.3 (0.7-2.5) | 0.46 (0.17-1.20) | .33 |
| Race | |||||
| Black | 13.6 (10.5-17.3) | 14.4 (9.8-20.5) | 12.9 (9.1-18.0) | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| White | 64.1 (60.0-68.0) | 61.5 (55.1-67.4) | 66.2 (60.7-71.2) | 1.20 (0.66-2.16) | .55 |
| Otherd | 12.0 (9.6-15.0) | 12.7 (9.1-17.5) | 11.4 (8.4-15.4) | 1.00 (0.48-2.08) | >.99 |
| Multiple | 4.7 (3.8-5.9) | 4.8 (3.4-6.8) | 4.6 (3.5-6.1) | 1.07 (0.53-2.17) | .85 |
| Missing or PNA | 5.6 (4.0-7.8) | 6.6 (4.2-10.4) | 4.8 (3.0-7.6) | 0.81 (0.34-1.93) | .63 |
| High school diploma | 78.5 (74.7-81.9) | 82.4 (76.9-86.9) | 75.4 (70.1-80.0) | 0.06 (0.42-1.01) | .055 |
| Income lower than average | 37.4 (33.5-41.3) | 39.1 (33.3-45.2) | 36.0 (31.0-41.3) | 0.88 (0.63-1.23) | .44 |
| Rural community | 29.2 (25.6-33.1) | 29.3 (23.9-35.3) | 29.2 (24.4-34.5) | 0.99 (0.69-1.44) | .98 |
| Age at survey, mean (95% CI), y | 22.8 (22.6-23.1) | 22.7 (22.3-23.1) | 22.9 (22.6-23.2) | 1.02 (0.97-1.08) | .42 |
| Total abuse score (aged <18 y), mean (95% CI) | 3.66 (3.49-3.83) | 3.66 (3.40-3.92) | 3.66 (3.43-3.89) | 1.00 (0.92-1.08) | .92 |
| Total adversity score (aged <18 y), mean (95% CI) | 3.49 (3.29-3.69) | 3.31 (3.02-3.60) | 3.64 (3.36-3.91) | 1.06 (0.99-1.07) | .10 |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; PNA, prefer not to answer.
Data are weighted to approximate US population.
Other gender category included transgender, genderqueer, and other identity.
Other sexual orientation category included gay, lesbian, and other identity.
Other racial category included Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and other identity.
Youth and Incident Characteristics and Response to Coercive Image Request
Respondent demographics, such as age at the time of the incident, gender identity, race and ethnicity, educational level, income level, rural vs urban residence, and age at time of survey, were not significantly associated with response to coercive requests for sexual images (Table 1). Sexual orientation was a significant factor: adolescents who shared an image were more likely to report a bisexual sexual orientation compared with those who did not share an image (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.43-2.92; P < .001). There were no significant differences in response based on the total number of adversities or experiences of violence reported before 18 years of age.
Several incident characteristics were significantly associated with the likelihood of image sharing in response to coercion (Table 2). The number of perpetrators and the age of the perpetrator (youth vs adult) were not associated with whether an image was shared by the respondents in response to coercion. Respondents were significantly less likely to have shared an image when the perpetrator was an acquaintance (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.39; P < .001) or someone known only online (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.54; P < .001) compared with a dating partner. Sharing an image was more likely if the coercive requests lasted more than 1 month (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 2.44-5.16) and when requests had been made 4 or more times (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.59-3.14; P < .001). There was no statistically greater likelihood of sharing images in response to coercion when threats vs strong pressure was used.
Table 2. Bivariate Analysis of Incident Characteristics by Image Sharing in Response to Coercion.
| Incident characteristic | Incidents, weighted % (95% CI)a | OR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All incidents (N = 1886) | Did not share image (n = 819) | Shared image (n = 1067) | |||
| ≥2 Perpetrators | 16.7 (13.9-20.0) | 17.2 (13.0-22.3) | 16.4 (12.8-20.7) | 0.94 (0.61-1.45) | .78 |
| Adult perpetrators | 53.0 (48.9-57.0) | 51.8 (45.7-57.9) | 54.0 (48.6-59.3) | 1.09 (0.78-1.51) | .60 |
| Perpetrator relationship to respondent | |||||
| Dating partner | 22.1 (18.9-25.7) | 11.5 (8.0-16.3) | 30.5 (25.8-35.7) | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Friend or acquaintance | 21.7 (18.6-25.3) | 28.0 (22.9-33.8) | 16.7 (13.0-21.3) | 0.22 (0.13-0.39) | <.001 |
| Online only or stranger | 53.4 (49.4-57.5) | 57.3 (51.1-63.2) | 50.4 (45.0-55.8) | 0.33 (0.20-0.54) | <.001 |
| Missing or PNA | 2.7 (1.7-4.2) | 3.2 (1.8-5.5) | 2.3 (1.2-4.5) | 0.28 (0.10-0.74) | .01 |
| Happened ≥4 times | 40.0 (36.0-43.9) | 29.4 (24.3-35.1) | 48.2 (42.8-53.7) | 2.24 (1.59-3.14) | <.001 |
| Incident lasted ≥1 month | 31.1 (27.5-34.9) | 17.1 (13.2-21.8) | 42.2 (37.0-47.7) | 3.55 (2.44-5.16) | <.001 |
| Threat involved | 13.1 (10.6-16.1) | 11.3 (8.0-15.8) | 14.5 (11.0-18.7) | 1.32 (0.81-2.16) | .26 |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; PNA, prefer not to answer.
Data are weighted to approximate US population.
Image Sharing and Psychological Outcomes
Respondents who shared images in response to coercive image requests were significantly less likely to disclose the incident to someone before 18 years of age compared with those who did not provide an image (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98; P = .041) (Table 3). Respondents who shared images in response to coercive requests were also more likely to report that the outcome of the event for them was “significant” (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.95-4.28; P < .001) and identify a greater number of negative psychological outcomes (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17; P = .001). The Figure displays the range of negative outcomes reported by respondents and the differences for respondents who provided an image. Respondents who provided an image were significantly more likely to report that the incident resulted in breaking up relationships (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.15-3.07; P = .01), skipping school (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60; P = .02), thoughts about hurting self (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.92-3.84; P < .001), seeing a physician or counselor (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.67; P = .02), moving to a new house (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.24-10.21; P = .02), and trouble with police (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.82-17.55; P = .003) than adolescent who did not provide an image in response to coercion. There were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between the 2 groups at the time of survey administration.
Table 3. Bivariate Analysis of Incident Outcomes and Sexual Image Sharing in Response to Coercion.
| Outcome | Incidents, weighted % (95% CI)a | OR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All incidents (N = 1886) | Did not share image (n = 819) | Shared image (n = 1067) | |||
| Disclosed incident (aged <18 y) | 27.7 (24.3-31.4) | 31.9 (26.6-37.6) | 24.4 (20.1-29.3) | 0.69 (0.48-0.98) | .04 |
| Outcome of event for respondent reported as “significant” | 25.8 (22.4-29.5) | 15.3 (11.6-19.8) | 34.2 (29.2-39.7) | (2.89 (1.95-4.28) | <.001 |
| Sum of negative outcomes, mean (95% CI) | 2.83 (2.60-3.07) | 2.40 (2.09-2.69) | 3.18 (2.84-3.53) | 1.10 (1.04-1.17) | .001 |
| High depressive symptoms (+1 SD) | 14.2 (11.6-17.1) | 14.6 (11.0-19.2) | 13.8 (10.4-17.9) | 0.93 (0.59-1.46) | .76 |
Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.
Data are weighted to approximate US population.
Figure. Negative Outcomes of Coercive Requests for Sexual Images by Decision to Share.
aP < .05.
bP < .001.
cP < .01.
Logistic Regression of Factors Associated With Response to Coercive Image Requests
A multivariate logistic regression model (Table 4) examined the unique contribution of factors associated with sharing an image in response to coercive requests that were significant at P < .10 at the bivariate level. Bisexual respondents were more likely to share a sexual image when coerced than heterosexual respondents (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-2.24; P = .04). Respondents were significantly less likely to share an image when the perpetrator was a friend or acquaintance (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.31-0.42; P < .001) or a stranger or someone known only online (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58; P < .001) compared with dating partners. Respondents were more likely to share a sexual image when the incident lasted 1 month or longer (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.66-3.70; P = .001) and when image requests were made 4 or more times (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.31-2.74; P < .001).
Table 4. Multivariate Logistic Regression on Decision to Share Images in Response to Coercive Requests.
| Factor | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Male | 1.97 (0.83-4.71) | .13 |
| Other | 0.82 (0.48-1.39) | .46 |
| Missing or PNA | 0.70 (0.37-1.30) | .26 |
| Respondent sexual orientation | ||
| Heterosexual | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Bisexual | 1.53 (1.05-2.24) | .03 |
| Other | 0.99 (0.64-1.53) | .98 |
| Missing or PNA | 0.48 (0.21-1.09) | .08 |
| High school diploma | 0.67 (0.42-1.08) | .10 |
| Perpetrator relationship to respondent | ||
| Dating partner | 1.00 [Reference] | NA |
| Friend or acquaintance | 0.23 (0.31-0.42) | <.001 |
| Online only or stranger | 0.35 (0.22-0.58) | <.001 |
| Lasted ≥1 mo | 2.48 (1.66-3.70) | .001 |
| Requested ≥4 times | 1.89 (1.31-2.74) | <.001 |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; PNA, prefer not to answer.
Discussion
Survey data from a large sample of young adult respondents found that after receiving a coercive request for a sexual image before the age of 18 years, more than half had complied by sharing an image. Respondents who sent sexual images in response to a coercive request were more likely to do so when the person making the request was a dating partner and when the requests involved threats, lasted 1 month or more, or were repetitive (≥4 times). Sharing an image was significantly associated with negative outcomes for respondents and with less disclosure and help-seeking compared with those who did not share images.
Factors Associated With Sharing Sexual Images After Coercive Requests
Demographic differences and adversity histories largely did not distinguish respondents who did and did not share images in response to coercive requests. Respondents reporting their sexual orientation as bisexual were the only subgroup significantly more likely to have shared images in response to coercion, even after controlling for incident characteristics. There is currently limited research on IBSA experienced by sexual and gender minority adolescents, but some studies suggest heightened risk for these populations.23,24 Experiences of stigma and problematic connections with parents and peers may lead these adolescents to feel more isolated and less empowered when faced with coercion and sexual harassment.25,26
Public concern and prevention messaging around IBSA often focus on online strangers communicating with adolescents in deceptive ways.27,28 More than half of the coercive requests for images came from strangers or individuals known only online, with the rest coming from dating partners and acquaintances. However, respondents were significantly more likely to share sexual images in response to coercive requests from dating partners compared with strangers or acquaintances. Other research has similarly found that IBSA and sextortion are commonly perpetrated by partners and peers.29,30
Outcomes of Sharing Sexual Images After Coercive Requests
The decision to share sexual photos in response to coercive requests was associated with significantly greater self-reported negative outcomes for respondents, negatively affecting their relationships and school attendance, increased suicidal ideation, and life disruptions. Prior research has similarly documented that coercive sexting negatively affects mental health and is associated with offline sexual coercion.30,31,32,33 Those experiencing IBSA report feeling ongoing fear over the circulation or resurfacing of their images online as well as worry about being recognized in public.6,34,35 Public accessibility of the images may also contribute to the feelings of ongoing vulnerability, helplessness, and powerlessness.
Study findings also identified a negative association between sharing a sexual image in response to coercion and disclosure. Adolescents who received coercive requests for sexual images but did not provide an image were more likely to disclose the experience to someone compared with those who provided an image. It may be that disclosing the coercive requests provided respondents with support and made it easier for them to avoid sharing an image. It also may be that respondents who share sexual images in response to coercion feel shame in ways that inhibit disclosure despite experiencing significant negative emotional outcomes. Prior research has found that shame generally inhibits disclosure for sexual abuse survivors36 and that shame and fear of negative reactions by others are central to the decision by survivors of IBSA to disclose or not disclose.37,38
Implications for Prevention and Intervention
Prevention efforts are increasing to help adolescents identify online risk, including image-based abuses.39 There is evidence that sexual and relationship health programs can reduce sexual abuse.40 Findings from the current study suggest that dating partners hold more risk for adolescents, yet much of the current efforts focus on the risk of exchanging information with unknown individuals online.40,41 Generally, adolescents need to understand that pressure to share sexual images is harmful and that for those who feel compelled to share sexual images in response to coercion, the impacts on them can be substantial, affecting school work and mental health. Many adolescents who make these kinds of pressured, repeated requests, particularly in the context of dating relationships, may not understand that the impact of this behavior can be significantly negative and a form of sexual harassment and abuse. Adolescents should be provided with skills to help in refusal and resistance when they are feeling reluctant to share an image.42,43
Limitations
Limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting findings. The study used online recruitment through social media, screening for adolescents who were more likely to have had experiences with IBSA. This recruitment strategy resulted in large percentages of LGBTQ+ adolescents and adolescents with IBSA histories. The study was not intended to provide nationally representative rates of IBSA but to understand the dynamics and outcomes of IBSA among young people who had experienced this form of abuse. However, findings may not represent the experiences of all adolescents in the US. Additionally, young adult survey respondents were reporting retrospectively on experiences they had when they were younger. For most of the respondents, this was only a few years since the incident described in the study; however, recall bias may have affected findings. Lastly, the study’s cross-sectional design prevents us from making conclusions about the long-term effects of sharing vs not sharing sexual images in response to coercion.
Conclusions
In this survey study, 6204 young adults from across the US reported on 1886 incidents of coercive requests for sexual images that they received before 18 years of age. In more than half of the incidents, adolescents responded to the coercive requests by sharing images. Adolescents were more likely to provide images when the coercive request came from a dating partner or acquaintance, and when the requests occurred multiple times or over more than a month. Adolescents who shared images in response to coercive requests were much more likely than those who did not experience significant negative outcomes after the incident, including suicidal ideation, and were less likely to disclose the abuse to anyone. Findings highlight the importance of including information about pressured and coercive requests for images in prevention education programs.
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Cooper K, Quayle E, Jonsson L, Svedin CG. Adolescents and self-taken sexual images: a review of the literature. Comput Human Behav. 2016;55:706-716. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Patchin JW, Hinduja S. The nature and extent of sexting among a national sample of middle and high school students in the US. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(8):2333-2343. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-1449-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Colburn D. Contexts and characteristics of imaged-based sexual exploitation and abuse of children: incident dynamics in a national sample. Child Maltreat. 2025;30(1):68-81. doi: 10.1177/10775595241233970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Maheux AJ, Evans R, Widman L, Nesi J, Prinstein MJ, Choukas-Bradley S. Popular peer norms and adolescent sexting behavior. J Adolesc. 2020;78:62-66. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Burén J, Holmqvist Gattario K, Lunde C. What do peers think about sexting? adolescents’ views of the norms guiding sexting behavior. J Adolesc Res. 2022;37(2):221-249. doi: 10.1177/07435584211014837 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gewirtz-Meydan A, Mitchell KJ, Rothman EF. What do kids think about sexting? Comput Human Behav. 2018;86:256-265. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Van Ouytsel J, Van Gool E, Walrave M, Ponnet K, Peeters E. Sexting: adolescents’ perceptions of the applications used for, motives for, and consequences of sexting. J Youth Stud. 2017;20(4):446-470. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gámez-Guadix M, Mateos-Pérez E, Wachs S, Wright M, Martínez J, Íncera D. Assessing image-based sexual abuse: measurement, prevalence, and temporal stability of sextortion and nonconsensual sexting (“revenge porn”) among adolescents. J Adolesc. 2022;94(5):789-799. doi: 10.1002/jad.12064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Finkelhor D, Turner H, Colburn D, Mitchell K, Mathews B. Child sexual abuse images and youth produced images: the varieties of image-based sexual exploitation and abuse of children. Child Abuse Negl. 2023;143:106269. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Finkelhor D, Sutton S, Turner H, Colburn D. How risky is online sexting by minors? J Child Sex Abus. 2024;33(2):169-182. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2024.2324838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Thulin EJ, Kernsmith P, Fleming PJ, Heinze JE, Temple J, Smith-Darden J. Coercive-sexting: predicting adolescent initial exposure to electronic coercive sexual dating violence. Comput Human Behav. 2023;141:107641. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lunde C, Joleby M. Being under pressure to sext: adolescents’ experiences, reactions, and counter-strategies. J Res Adolesc. 2023;33(1):188-201. doi: 10.1111/jora.12797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ojeda Pérez M, Dodaj A, Sesar K, Del Ray R. Some voluntarily and some under pressure”: conceptualization, reasons, attitudes, and consequences of sexting among adolescents. Telemat Inform. 2022;75:101891. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2022.101891 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ringrose J, Regehr K, Milne B. Understanding and combatting youth experiences of image-based sexual harassment and abuse. UCL Institute of Education. 2021. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/research-projects/2022/apr/understanding-and-combatting-youth-experiences-image-based-sexual-harassment-and-abuse
- 15.Taylor BG, Liu W, Mumford EA. Profiles of youth in-person and online sexual harassment victimization. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(13-14):6769-6796. doi: 10.1177/0886260518820673 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Walrave M, Heirman W, Hallam L. Under pressure to sext? applying the theory of planned behaviour to adolescent sexting. Behav Inf Technol. 2014;33(1):86-98. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.837099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pratt-Chapman M, Moses J, Arem H. Strategies for the identification and prevention of survey fraud: data analysis of a web-based survey. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(3):e30730. doi: 10.2196/30730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kessler RC, Barker P, Colpe L, Epstein J, Gfroerer J, Hiripi E. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Harvard Medical School; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 19.United States Census Bureau . Current Populations Survey (CPS). Accessed October 7, 2024. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html
- 20.Brown A. 5 Key findings about LGBTQ+ Americans. Pew Research Center. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/23/5-key-findings-about-lgbtq-americans/
- 21.Brown A. About 5% of young adults in the US say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth. Pew Research Center. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/
- 22.StataCorp . Stata: Release 17 [software]. StataCorp LLC; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mitchell KJ, Colburn D, Finkelhor D, Gewirtz-Meydan A, Turner HA, Jones LM. Links between image-based sexual abuse and mental health in childhood among young adult social media users. Child Abuse Negl. 2025;164:107471. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, Colburn D. Prevalence of technology-facilitated abuse among sexual and gender minority youths. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(2):e2354485. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.54485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Hatzenbuehler ML, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Dovidio J. How does stigma “get under the skin”? the mediating role of emotion regulation. Psychol Sci. 2009;20(10):1282-1289. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02441.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ryan C, Huebner D, Diaz RM, Sanchez J. Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):346-352. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3524 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Finkelhor D, Turner H, Colburn D. Which dynamics make online child sexual abuse and cyberstalking more emotionally impactful: perpetrator identity and images? Child Abuse Negl. 2023;137:106020. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hong S, Lu N, Wu D, Jimenez DE, Milanaik RL. Digital sextortion: internet predators and pediatric interventions. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(1):192-197. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000854 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Henry N, Umbach R. Sextortion: prevalence and correlates in 10 countries. Comput Human Behav. 2024;158:108298. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108298 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Powell A, Henry N, Flynn A, Scott AJ. Image-based sexual abuse: the extent, nature, and predictors of perpetration in a community sample of Australian residents. Comput Human Behav. 2019;92:393-402. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kernsmith PD, Victor BG, Smith-Darden JP. Online, offline, and over the line: coercive sexting among adolescent dating partners. Youth Soc. 2018;50(7):891-904. doi: 10.1177/0044118X18764040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Drouin M, Ross J, Tobin E. Sexting: a new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Comput Human Behav. 2015;50:197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Englander EK. Sexting, revenge pornography, and digital dating abuse: new research on adolescent digital behaviors. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;55(10):S338. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.07.415 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Binford W, Giesbrecht-McKee J, Savey JL, Schwartz-Gilbert R. Beyond Paroline: ensuring meaningful remedies for child pornography victims at home and abroad. Child Legal Rights J. 2015;35:117-162. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Von Weiler J, Haardt-Becker A, Schulte S. Care and treatment of child victims of child pornographic exploitation (CPE) in Germany. J Sex Aggress. 2010;16(2):211-222. doi: 10.1080/13552601003759990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Alaggia R, Collin-Vézina D, Lateef R. Facilitators and barriers to child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures: a research update (2000–2016). Trauma Violence Abuse. 2019;20(2):260-283. doi: 10.1177/1524838017697312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pijlman V, Eichelsheim V, Pemberton A, Waardt M. “I did not want to make a bigger deal out of it than it was”: a mixed-method study on the help-seeking behavior of victims of image-based sexual harassment and abuse. J Interpers Violence. 2025;40(5-6):1325-1359. doi: 10.1177/08862605241258996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Pijlman V, Waardt MD, Schoonmade L, Eichelsheim V, Pemberton A. The help-seeking behavior of victims of image-based sexual harassment and abuse: a scoping review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2025;26(4):734-754. doi: 10.1177/15248380241289435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Wurtele SK, Kenny MC. Preventing online sexual victimization of youth. J Behav Anal Offender Vict Treat Prev. 2010;2(1):63-73. doi: 10.1037/h0100468 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Schneider M, Hirsch JS. Comprehensive sexuality education as a primary prevention strategy for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020;21(3):439-455. doi: 10.1177/1524838018772855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.World Health Organization . What works to prevent violence against children online? World Health Organization; 2022. Accessed January 24, 2026. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240062061
- 42.Patchin JW, Hinduja S. It is time to teach safe sexting. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(2):140-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.10.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Mori C, Park J, Temple JR, Madigan S. Are youth sexting rates still on the rise? a meta-analytic update. J Adolesc Health. 2022;70(4):531-539. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Sharing Statement
